After Family Settlement, Gujarat HC Restores 1985 Land Entry, Directs Maniben’s Heir Be Added For 12 Parcels

The petition concerned Entry No. 1025, recorded in 1985 and certified in 1986, reflecting relinquishments of rights in various lands at Village Katpur in favour of the petitioners.

Respondents challenged the entry under Rule 108(5) of the Bombay Land Revenue Rules.

The Deputy Collector, Collector and Special Secretary set it aside, including on the ground that Maniben, who had died in 1975, was not represented by her legal heirs in the mutation proceedings.

In the High Court, the petitioners and most private respondents reached a settlement and filed affidavits waiving objections to the entry.

Respondent No. 5.3 was identified as a legal heir of Maniben.

Rule 108(5) of the Bombay Land Revenue Rules provides the procedural basis for an appeal concerning a revenue mutation entry.

A mutation entry is maintained for fiscal purposes and does not create or extinguish right, title or interest; disputes concerning title are for the civil court to determine.

The Court relied on Sawarni v. Inder Kaur, (1996) 6 SCC 223, for this principle.

The Court considered the parties’ affidavits and their consensus to waive objections to Entry No. 1025, while noting that respondent No. 5.3 was Maniben’s legal heir and that her name should be entered for the lands associated with Maniben.

It therefore restored the entry subject to that specific direction.

The Court clarified that the revenue entry would not determine title, leaving any such dispute for adjudication by a civil court.

The Court quashed the orders dated 30 October 2018, 16 May 2017 and 20 October 2016, and directed restoration of Entry No. 1025, subject to entering respondent No. 5.3’s name for Survey Nos. 52, 73/1, 76/4, 197/1, 197/3, 106/2, 47/3, 57/1, 57/4, 57/6, 58/2 and 58/3.

The restoration was for revenue purposes and did not determine title.